Notwithstanding the good news that Norma has given us, I have set forth below the next De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough formulation for the members to consider. That formulation is based on my most recent De Lorenzo clone test dough that was, by far, the best of the De Lorenzo clone test doughs that I have made to date using the King Arthur bread flour (KABF). The latest test dough was for a one-day cold fermentation. I will also set forth below how I made the test dough using my basic KitchenAid stand mixer so that others might use the same method if they so desire.

As before, the test dough was 10 ounces. The corresponding thickness factor (for a 14" skin) was about 0.065 (it's actually 0.0.06496). In terms of performance, the test dough was very similar to one of my earliest test doughs where I used the General Mills unbleached unbromated all-purpose flour with a hydration of 59%, 1% oil (blend), and a thickness factor of about 0.065. That dough was also a one day cold fermented dough. The latest test dough essentially mimics that earlier test dough but with a different flour (the KABF).

As previously noted, my goal was to try to make a dough that would handle like those shown in the video that Norma took and posted at Reply 326 at http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg275403.html#msg275403. And, in that regard, I believe that I succeeded. The clone test dough opened with ease and I was able to stretch it to its final size (14") without any difficulty. In fact, I could have opened the skin to 16" or more had I chosen to do so. I wasn't quite sure what to expect because the dough had just about tripled in volume after one day of cold fermentation. I simply flattened the dough ball with the palm of my hand, and let it temper for about a half-hour at room temperature (the brief temper period was a concession to a warm Texas kitchen). There were no bubbles in the dough at any time during its fermentation, either in the storage container (I used a lidded glass Pyrex bowl) or on the bench. As with my prior tests, I put some cornmeal at the bottom of the storage container. There was no oil in either the storage container or the test dough ball itself.

While I did not time the total time that it took me to open the test dough ball and stretch it, it was not much more than that shown in the video at Reply 326. The dough did not try to run away from me. It stretched and contracted as shown in the video. Yet, despite its nice balance between elasticity and extensibility, it was not a skin that could be tossed. After the skin was formed, I put it on a floured 14" wooden peel, where it stayed for over an hour. I did this to see if the skin would stick to the peel. It did not.

With the above as background, here is the proposed De Lorenzo clone dough formulation:

Note: Dough is for a single 14" pizza; the corresponding thickness factor = about 0.065; bowl residue compensation = 1.5%

In terms of the dough preparation method I used, this was the sequence:

1. Place the water, salt and oil blend in the mixer bowl and stir to dissolve the salt.2. Combine the flour and IDY in a container (I use a plastic bowl).3. With the flat beater attached, and with the mixer at speed 1, gradually add the flour mixture (I gradually shake the flour mix into the mixer bowl in a somewhat vibrating fashion so it is essentially sprinkled into the mixer bowl). 4. When the dough clears the sides of the mixer bowl, stop the mixer and replace the flat beater attachment with the C-hook. If the dough does not quite clear the sides of the mixer bowl with the flat beater attached, stop the mixer and combine the ingredients by hand to form a dough ball. It need not be smooth at this point but should hold together; it might even be a bit sticky.5. With the C-hook attached, knead the dough at speeds 2-3 for about 7 minutes.6. Stop the mixer and do a final knead of the dough ball by hand to make it round (this is where I weigh the dough ball and trim it to 10 ounces, if needed, measure the finished dough temperature, put the dough ball into its storage container, put the two poppy seeds in place, spaced 1" apart, and attach the lid). 7. Put the dough within its container, and with the lid attached, into the refrigerator. Note the time the dough is placed into the refrigerator.

It will be noted that there is no rest period for the dough at any time, either in the mixer bowl or outside of the mixer bowl at room temperature before refrigerating the dough.

Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Just because I was able to make a dough that behaves like a Robbinsville dough does not mean that it will perform the same or as well as a Robbinsville dough in the oven.

Peter

Peter,

Congrats to you for experimenting and finding out another dough formulation for members to try out. It sounds like the dough formulation and methods you used for mixing made a fantastic dough that is easy to press and open into skin that is just like De Lorenzo/Robbinsville.

Now I am confused on what to try for my next attempt. Do you think the higher hydration formulation would be better to try?

Now I am confused on what to try for my next attempt. Do you think the higher hydration formulation would be better to try?

Norma,

As I previously mentioned, I believe that there is a range of possible baker's percents that will produce good results. Also, as I have mentioned before, my mixer may not produce dough balls that are as good as other members can produce, and certainly not as robust as what commercial mixers can produce, which would include the dough balls made at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville. The latest De Lorenzo clone dough formulation represents the best I can achieve in my kitchen, but whether it is better than the dough formulation that you and Trenton Bill used remains to be seen.

At some time I would like to try to make a credible two day cold fermented De Lorenzo clone dough. Whether De Lorenzo/Robbinsville is using a one-day or two-day cold fermented dough is not clear. Members at the Trenton thread mentioned both time periods.

So, I am not about to affix the label below to my De Lorenzo clone file .

As I previously mentioned, I believe that there is a range of possible baker's percents that will produce good results. Also, as I have mentioned before, my mixer may not produce dough balls that are as good as other members can produce, and certainly not as robust as what commercial mixers can produce, which would include the dough balls made at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville. The latest De Lorenzo clone dough formulation represents the best I can achieve in my kitchen, but whether it is better than the dough formulation that you and Trenton Bill used remains to be seen.

At some time I would like to try to make a credible two day cold fermented De Lorenzo clone dough. Whether De Lorenzo/Robbinsville is using a one-day or two-day cold fermented dough is not clear. Members at the Trenton thread mentioned both time periods.

So, I am not about to affix the label below to my De Lorenzo clone file .

Peter

Lol Peter about you posting “CASE CLOSED” from the affixed label. I knew that was not you in the way you try to sniff out every detail and I know the case never will be closed when there is cloning and reverse engineering pizza involved. I know you previously mentioned that you believed there is a range of possible baker's percents that will produce good results.

There are just too many variables in mixers, what methods different people use to make their doughs, home ovens, deck ovens, formulations and even using different temperatures in the Blackstone oven unit. I could go on forever about all those variables and know you could too. I probably could mix the same dough using the same methods and know I probably would get different results in my deck oven than I got with the BS.

Which formulation do you want me to try for market Tuesday?

I will ask when I go to De Lorenzo/Robbinsville the next time how long they ferment their dough balls. Whether I will get the right answer or not remains to be seen.

BTW, I didn't mention this before, but I did call and asked to talk to Jason at Slice near the 9th St. Italian Market on Friday. Jason was away for the weekend, but the lady I spoke to said he would be back Monday if I wanted to speak to him. I did tell the lady that answered the phone that I had been to De Lorenzo/Robbinsville and heard that Jason makes a pizza something like the do. The lady told me Jason's pizzas are modeled after De Lorenzo's. I told the lady I missed going to Slice since I didn't know about it when I was last at the 9th St. Italian Market. I will see if Jason can give any information about De Lorenzo's.

This is how the attempt at the clone De Lorenzo/Robbinsville pizza went yesterday with the DB2 dough ball.

I had mixed exactly the same and used the same formulation I did before for the DB2 dough and did not oil or flour the dough ball before balling. The first photo is of how the dough ball looked after it was balled.

The dough ball was left at room temperature of about 75 degrees F for about 1 ½ hrs. to warm up. The dough ball pressed out fine, but I did not have the same results in trying to stretch the skin open over the marble table as I did on my wooden kitchen table. The dough did not want to slide around as easily as it did on my wooden kitchen table, even though there was about the same amount of flour on the marble bench. I then opened the rest of the way by hand. The skin openly nicely, but it would not have been able to be tossed.

The De Lorenzo/Robbinsville attempted pizza was dressed with the same blend of tomato products and cheese as my last attempt in the BS.

I used Brad's advice and baked in the four quadrants of my deck oven and moved the pizza at about 2 minute intervals. Thanks Brad for helping me to make a better De Lorenzo's clone pizza with your advice in what methods to bake in my deck oven.

I pulled the pizza to brush the rim with olive oil and add more cheese at about 6 minutes. The total bake time was about 8 ½ minutes. The rim did not char, but the bottom of the crust did char. The bottom crust did not taste burnt at all though. The pizza did crunch when being cut with a pizza cutter. When tasting the pizza it was crispy on the bottom crust and crunchy, but needed a little more crunch to be able to compare to a real De Lorenzo/Robbinsville pizza. At least I know my deck oven can bake a pizza almost like a real De Lorenzo/Robbinsville pizza. I really don't know if this pizza could have been baked longer in my deck oven for that extra crunch.

Sorry for the one blurry photo of the pizza in the oven, but it is hard to take a photo when the oven door is open because the heat almost burns your fingers.

Thanks for saying the pizza looked good, but I had a better attempt in my opinion on the BS. The crust was more rigid on that attempt and had more crunch.

Thanks for telling me you think I need to pour the oil on to get more top char. Maybe my skin needs to be flattened more too. Brad posted I think that Blodgett oven do have air channels that can be directed for better top crust browning. Good to hear you do get even charring top and bottom. For one thing at market I can not bake at 600 degrees F because of my other pizzas.

I have no idea how Robbinsville get a less spotty bottom. I used the same flour for bench flour as I did to make the pizza yesterday. I put the semolina skin side as the bottom part when baking the pizza too.

The other day I made another De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test dough. It was similar to an earlier two-day cold fermented version but with less oil (blend) and a higher hydration value. Specifically, this was the formulation: 57.5% hydration, 0.20% IDY, 1.5% salt, 0.30% olive oil, and 1.2% soybean oil (for a total of 1.5% oil blend). By selecting 0.20% IDY, what I was shooting for was a doubling in the volume of the dough after two days. As you know, and as you reported recently on another thread, it can be a challenge to make a dough in a home environment where the refrigerator door is opened and closed several times a day. I am always adding and subtracting things in my refrigerator so I am never quite sure what a dough ball sitting in the middle of everything is likely to do, even when I put it toward the back of the refrigerator compartment. Fortunately, somehow the test dough did not go wild. It increased in volume by 126% (a bit more than a doubling).

I let the dough warm up for about 45 minutes. Previously, both during the cold fermentation of the dough and for most of the temper time, there had been no bubbling of the dough at any time or any place. However, toward the end of the temper time, I started to see signs of soft bubbles forming in the dough. There is really nothing with that kind of bubbling, and it is often responsible for some nice bubbles forming in the finished crust, even at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville, but I did not see signs of bubbling in the dough balls that I saw in the Robbinsville photos or in the video that you posted from your visit there. I decided to open up the dough ball. I was able to do this but it took longer to get the dough ball to open without springing back too much. But, using my knuckles, I was able to open up the dough ball to 14" quite easily. I even went to past 18" to see what would happen. The skin responded to my every move, without tears or anything else going wrong. There were soft bubbles in the skin, however, but I could not toss the skin.

I mention all of the above because I am still wondering how De Lorenzo/Robbinsville manages to get dough balls that show no signs of bubbling, at least that I could see from everything I looked at. From my past test dough balls, I was able to form a decent skins in a decent amount of time even the dough balls had expanded in volume by double and triple. And it wasn't because I was using an excessive amount of yeast for what I was trying to do. Admittedly, with my latest test ball I was using a higher hydration than the 55% doughs that you and Trenton Bill tried with good results, so maybe that is a factor, or it might be a factor for a two-day cold fermented dough but not for a one-day cold fermented dough because of the extended fermentation of the two-day old dough ball.

To explore things a bit further, I am in the process of making another two-day cold fermented test dough but with considerably less yeast. This time, I will not be shooting for a double. Rather, it will hopefully be less than that. I'd like to see if that dough will perform both during and after tempering without the formation of soft bubbles. I'd hate to blame that on Texas heat or my refrigerator if the bubbles do form.

The other day I made another De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test dough. It was similar to an earlier two-day cold fermented version but with less oil (blend) and a higher hydration value. Specifically, this was the formulation: 57.5% hydration, 0.20% IDY, 1.5% salt, 0.30% olive oil, and 1.2% soybean oil (for a total of 1.5% oil blend). By selecting 0.20% IDY, what I was shooting for was a doubling in the volume of the dough after two days. As you know, and as you reported recently on another thread, it can be a challenge to make a dough in a home environment where the refrigerator door is opened and closed several times a day. I am always adding and subtracting things in my refrigerator so I am never quite sure what a dough ball sitting in the middle of everything is likely to do, even when I put it toward the back of the refrigerator compartment. Fortunately, somehow the test dough did not go wild. It increased in volume by 126% (a bit more than a doubling).

I let the dough warm up for about 45 minutes. Previously, both during the cold fermentation of the dough and for most of the temper time, there had been no bubbling of the dough at any time or any place. However, toward the end of the temper time, I started to see signs of soft bubbles forming in the dough. There is really nothing with that kind of bubbling, and it is often responsible for some nice bubbles forming in the finished crust, even at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville, but I did not see signs of bubbling in the dough balls that I saw in the Robbinsville photos or in the video that you posted from your visit there. I decided to open up the dough ball. I was able to do this but it took longer to get the dough ball to open without springing back too much. But, using my knuckles, I was able to open up the dough ball to 14" quite easily. I even went to past 18" to see what would happen. The skin responded to my every move, without tears or anything else going wrong. There were soft bubbles in the skin, however, but I could not toss the skin.

I mention all of the above because I am still wondering how De Lorenzo/Robbinsville manages to get dough balls that show no signs of bubbling, at least that I could see from everything I looked at. From my past test dough balls, I was able to form a decent skins in a decent amount of time even the dough balls had expanded in volume by double and triple. And it wasn't because I was using an excessive amount of yeast for what I was trying to do. Admittedly, with my latest test ball I was using a higher hydration than the 55% doughs that you and Trenton Bill tried with good results, so maybe that is a factor, or it might be a factor for a two-day cold fermented dough but not for a one-day cold fermented dough because of the extended fermentation of the two-day old dough ball.

To explore things a bit further, I am in the process of making another two-day cold fermented test dough but with considerably less yeast. This time, I will not be shooting for a double. Rather, it will hopefully be less than that. I'd like to see if that dough will perform both during and after tempering without the formation of soft bubbles. I'd hate to blame that on Texas heat or my refrigerator if the bubbles do form.

Peter

Peter,

What made you change your mind about upping the hydration a little and lowering the oil blend a little from your Reply at 699 http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,25401.msg280374.html#msg280374 I thought that formulation made your best test dough ball in how it opened. I thought the only thing wrong there were it just about tripled in volume. I think you posted that after you flattened that dough ball you saw no bubbles in the dough at any time during its fermentation.

Thanks for posting your results on your recent De Lorenzo/Ribbinsville clone test dough. I know it is a challenge right now for me to try to cold ferment dough balls at home as I recently reported. Not only is my fridge open and shut a lot of times during the day, but it is full in the freezer and fridge part with so much food from everyone. I am always digging to find what I want in my fridge. I am glad your dough ball did not go wild though.

I also had that bubbling problem a little in the dough ball I made for Tuesday when it sat out to warm up for a little while. I know there is really nothing wrong with that kind of bubbling, but I have no idea how De/Lorenzo/Robbinsville or De Lorenzo/Sloan makes their doughs when they are pressed like that they did not appear to have any bubbles of fermentation that I saw. Even the Sloan dough just about seemed lifeless after it was warmed up. I think they must not be using much yeast. Bill and I talked about that just this week and said the De Lorenzo/Robbinsville pizza we ate really didn't have a lot of flavor in the crust, but it was the whole pizza together that made it so good. We also talked about if such a thin crusted pizza really should have a great flavor in the baked crust and thought it probably really shouldn't, but we don't really know.

Why do you think your recent experiment wanted to spring back some? None of my tests dough did that.

Will be waiting to hear about your two-day cold fermented test dough with considerably less yeast.

Since we were told that De Lorenzo/Robbinsville uses only a small amount of oil, I decided to reduce it for the last test. However, I wanted the sum of the hydration and the oil to remain at 59%, which is the same as I used for the dough formulation in Reply 699 that you referenced.

As for the elasticity issue that I experienced with the last test dough until it started to open up, I would guess that it was either a more developed gluten structure or insufficient tempering, or maybe a combination of both. As you know, when you see only a single snapshot in time, as with the Robbinsville photos and video, there is no way to know where the dough is in its total fermentation cycle or window. In my case, I was trying to use my last test dough test before it started bubbling too much. Seeing the bubbling is what prompted me to think about a test dough that is low on fermentation. Hence, the latest test dough that I started yesterday. So far, after exactly one day of cold fermentation, the latest test dough has risen by a bit less than 42.4% according to the poppy seed spacing. The amount of yeast is 0.14% IDY. Each test dough that I make bears some relationship to one or more earlier test doughs. For me, that is the best way to learn.

Since we were told that De Lorenzo/Robbinsville uses only a small amount of oil, I decided to reduce it for the last test. However, I wanted the sum of the hydration and the oil to remain at 59%, which is the same as I used for the dough formulation in Reply 699 that you referenced.

As for the elasticity issue that I experienced with the last test dough until it started to open up, I would guess that it was either a more developed gluten structure or insufficient tempering, or maybe a combination of both. As you know, when you see only a single snapshot in time, as with the Robbinsville photos and video, there is no way to know where the dough is in its total fermentation cycle or window. In my case, I was trying to use my last test dough test before it started bubbling too much. Seeing the bubbling is what prompted me to think about a test dough that is low on fermentation. Hence, the latest test dough that I started yesterday. So far, after exactly one day of cold fermentation, the latest test dough has risen by a bit less than 42.4% according to the poppy seed spacing. The amount of yeast is 0.14% IDY. Each test dough that I make bears some relationship to one or more earlier test doughs. For me, that is the best way to learn.

Peter

Peter,

Thanks for explaining why you decided to reduce the oil for the last test. I can see your hydration remained the same though.

Thanks also for explaining why you might have experienced the elasticity issue with the last test dough ball.

I do know just from one snaphoto or the video we have no idea where the dough was in its total fermentation cycle or window. Thanks for posting how much you latest test dough has risen so far. It sounds like your latest dough ball is pretty well on track with that low amount of IDY.

I have concluded the latest De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test dough. I would call it a success but I hasten to add that that does not necessarily mean that it is the best De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough. That is something that would have to be tested by way of a finished pizza, much as with some of the other clone dough formulations that have been posted. But the idea of keeping the fermentation on the low side seems to have merit. As I mentioned previously, the latest clone test dough was a two-day cold fermented dough. As I learned when I worked on the original Papa John's clone dough, which used a small amount of yeast so that the dough could be used for three to eight days, such a dough shouldn't be used until at least two days of cold fermentation. Anything less than that, the dough will not rise fast enough (it needs to be jumpstarted fermentation wise) and it will be sour tasting. If De Lorenzo/Robbinsville is using a low yeast dough and a one-day cold fermentation, that might manifest itself in a unique crust flavor. As you will recall, more than one of our members in the Trenton thread commented on how the De Lorenzo/Hudson crust had a yeast-like flavor, including one member, whose family had frequented De Lorenzo/Hudson for over 40 years, who was certain that De Lorenzo/Hudson was using a natural starter. At this point, I am hesitant to conclude anything along these lines. I am just trying to fit another piece into the puzzle.

The most recent De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough was prepared in the same manner as the previous test dough but for one material change, and that was to sift the flour along with the IDY and vital wheat gluten (a bit less than 1/4 teaspoon). As previously mentioned, the IDY was only 0.14%. With that small amount of IDY, after two days of cold fermentation the spacing of the poppy seeds suggested that the dough had risen by about 67.5%. After removing the dough ball from the refrigerator after the two days of cold fermentation, I let the dough ball sit within its container for about one hour, much as a dough ball would sit in a dough box at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville. I then flattened the dough ball somewhat and placed it on my work surface, again much like De Lorenzo/Robbinsville does at the marble or granite work area between the two work stations, for about another 3/4 hour. So, the total temper time was about 1 3/4 hours. During that time, the dough softened a bit and spread somewhat.

I think the dough ball could have tempered even longer, which it should have tolerated, but I decided to open it up anyway. I was able to do this with relative ease, using the two hand spread technique and letting the skin drape over the edge of my counter. Toward the end of that exercise, I lifted the skin and stretched it out to its intended final 14" size. The skin had a good balance between elasticity and extensibility, and I was able to stretch it to over 18". However, I would not have been able to toss and spin it. I should also note that at no time did the dough ball or skin exhibit bubbling. Apparently, the dough ball did not ferment long enough to induce bubbling.

Note: The dough (10 ounces) is for a single 14" pizza; the corresponding thickness factor = 0.065; the bowl residue compensation = 1.5%

You will note from the above that I lowered the hydration value from the 57.5% that I used for the last test clone dough to 57%, and I also reduced the oil (blend) back to 1%. So, the total remained at 58%. At this point, I am thinking of making another low-fermentation clone test dough but with a hydration of 56% and 1% oil. I may also let the dough rest in the bowl for a period long enough to let the dough start to ferment, and then refrigerate it. The rest period is to test whether De Lorenzo/Robbinsville does something like that, as one member previously reported at the Trenton thread. For a two-day low fermentation dough, this may mean even less IDY than 0.14%. As before, I will also sift the dry ingredients.

I have concluded the latest De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone test dough. I would call it a success but I hasten to add that that does not necessarily mean that it is the best De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough. That is something that would have to be tested by way of a finished pizza, much as with some of the other clone dough formulations that have been posted. But the idea of keeping the fermentation on the low side seems to have merit. As I mentioned previously, the latest clone test dough was a two-day cold fermented dough. As I learned when I worked on the original Papa John's clone dough, which used a small amount of yeast so that the dough could be used for three to eight days, such a dough shouldn't be used until at least two days of cold fermentation. Anything less than that, the dough will not rise fast enough (it needs to be jumpstarted fermentation wise) and it will be sour tasting. If De Lorenzo/Robbinsville is using a low yeast dough and a one-day cold fermentation, that might manifest itself in a unique crust flavor. As you will recall, more than one of our members in the Trenton thread commented on how the De Lorenzo/Hudson crust had a yeast-like flavor, including one member, whose family had frequented De Lorenzo/Hudson for over 40 years, who was certain that De Lorenzo/Hudson was using a natural starter. At this point, I am hesitant to conclude anything along these lines. I am just trying to fit another piece into the puzzle.

The most recent De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough was prepared in the same manner as the previous test dough but for one material change, and that was to sift the flour along with the IDY and vital wheat gluten (a bit less than 1/4 teaspoon). As previously mentioned, the IDY was only 0.14%. With that small amount of IDY, after two days of cold fermentation the spacing of the poppy seeds suggested that the dough had risen by about 67.5%. After removing the dough ball from the refrigerator after the two days of cold fermentation, I let the dough ball sit within its container for about one hour, much as a dough ball would sit in a dough box at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville. I then flattened the dough ball somewhat and placed it on my work surface, again much like De Lorenzo/Robbinsville does at the marble or granite work area between the two work stations, for about another 3/4 hour. So, the total temper time was about 1 3/4 hours. During that time, the dough softened a bit and spread somewhat.

I think the dough ball could have tempered even longer, which it should have tolerated, but I decided to open it up anyway. I was able to do this with relative ease, using the two hand spread technique and letting the skin drape over the edge of my counter. Toward the end of that exercise, I lifted the skin and stretched it out to its intended final 14" size. The skin had a good balance between elasticity and extensibility, and I was able to stretch it to over 18". However, I would not have been able to toss and spin it. I should also note that at no time did the dough ball or skin exhibit bubbling. Apparently, the dough ball did not ferment long enough to induce bubbling.

Note: The dough (10 ounces) is for a single 14" pizza; the corresponding thickness factor = 0.065; the bowl residue compensation = 1.5%

You will note from the above that I lowered the hydration value from the 57.5% that I used for the last test clone dough to 57%, and I also reduced the oil (blend) back to 1%. So, the total remained at 58%. At this point, I am thinking of making another low-fermentation clone test dough but with a hydration of 56% and 1% oil. I may also let the dough rest in the bowl for a period long enough to let the dough start to ferment, and then refrigerate it. The rest period is to test whether De Lorenzo/Robbinsville does something like that, as one member previously reported at the Trenton thread. For a two-day low fermentation dough, this may mean even less IDY than 0.14%. As before, I will also sift the dry ingredients.

Peter

Peter,

That is great to hear that you would call your latest De Lorenzo/Robbinsville test dough a success even if it might not be the best De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone dough. I think your idea to keep the fermentation on the low side seems to have merit too. I didn't know that if De Lorenzo/Robbinville is using a low yeast dough and a one-day cold fermentation that might manifest itself in a unique crust. I would have thought if not a lot of fermentation occurred there would not be a good taste in the crust, or did you mean something else by a unique crust? I do recall about the yeast-like flavor from the Trenton thread.

It sure sounds like your dough ball when opening it and stretching it went very good. That is good news that there was no bubbling.

I see you lowered the hydration and reduced the oil blend.

Do you want me to try out this formulation or wait until to see if you test another formulation?

By a "unique" taste I was thinking of something out of the ordinary that might confuse people as to what they are tasting. I would say that it would be rather unusual to eat a pizza that was made with a dough that was fermented for a short period and didn't rise much. For most doughs, most of us tend to think of at least a doubling of the volume of the dough, and we usually are OK with a tripling in volume and maybe even a bit more than that. In those cases, you will at least get the flavors that are the result of the byproducts of fermentation and, if the yeast quantity is high enough, you might get that musty flavor of yeast in addition. By contrast, an underfermented dough with a somewhat sour taste might lead to a "unique" taste.

It is up to you as to whether to try the last clone dough formulation. However, I think it would be a pretty good experiment even if it tells us that we are barking up the wrong tree. My emphasis has been on trying to make a dough that does not exhibit bubbling and is easy to open up and form into a skin like is done at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville. There are only so many ways to achieve doughs like that. Making a low yeast, low fermentation dough seems to be one such way. A low yeast, brief fermentation with above average high hydration would be another. If we knew the fermentation protocol at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville that would be a big help in steering us in the right direction. I have been relying on reports of our members who have said that De Lorenzo/Robbinsville cold ferments its doughs for one day and maybe even two days or more. A low yeast dough such as I posted in my last post would be able to make it out to three days. Day 1 might be dicey. Days 2 and 3 should be better. But in a pinch, a Day 1 dough might be used. Pizza operators improvise all the time when their diners are at their tables ordering up pizzas.

By a "unique" taste I was thinking of something out of the ordinary that might confuse people as to what they are tasting. I would say that it would be rather unusual to eat a pizza that was made with a dough that was fermented for a short period and didn't rise much. For most doughs, most of us tend to think of at least a doubling of the volume of the dough, and we usually are OK with a tripling in volume and maybe even a bit more than that. In those cases, you will at least get the flavors that are the result of the byproducts of fermentation and, if the yeast quantity is high enough, you might get that musty flavor of yeast in addition. By contrast, an underfermented dough with a somewhat sour taste might lead to a "unique" taste.

It is up to you as to whether to try the last clone dough formulation. However, I think it would be a pretty good experiment even if it tells us that we are barking up the wrong tree. My emphasis has been on trying to make a dough that does not exhibit bubbling and is easy to open up and form into a skin like is done at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville. There are only so many ways to achieve doughs like that. Making a low yeast, low fermentation dough seems to be one such way. A low yeast, brief fermentation with above average high hydration would be another. If we knew the fermentation protocol at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville that would be a big help in steering us in the right direction. I have been relying on reports of our members who have said that De Lorenzo/Robbinsville cold ferments its doughs for one day and maybe even two days or more. A low yeast dough such as I posted in my last post would be able to make it out to three days. Day 1 might be dicey. Days 2 and 3 should be better. But in a pinch, a Day 1 dough might be used. Pizza operators improvise all the time when their diners are at their tables ordering up pizzas.

Peter

Peter,

Thanks for explaining what you meant by a “unique” taste. I know most of us tend to like a dough ball that has doubled or even tripled in volume for the extra taste in the crust. I don't recall ever making a dough that was underfermented with a somewhat sour taste, but maybe I will find out about that.

I will try your latest formulation, but I would rather try it in the BS where I achieved better results before. Either that or just blind test it at market since it is a 2 day cold ferment. I still don't think I have my deck oven dialed in as much as I wanted to for a De Lorenzo/Robbinsville pizza. Maybe your new formulation will work better though.

I never thought of a low yeast, brief fermentation with above hydration working. I know if we really knew the fermentation schedule at De Lorenzo/Robbinsville that would be a big help in steering us in the right direction. Maybe I will try to message De Lorenzo/Robbinsville on facebook again and ask about how long they cold ferment their dough. I highly doubt if I will get an answer though.

Trenton Bill tried your same DB2 formulation out in his BS two more times since the last time he attempted a De Lorenzo/Robbinsville clone. He said none of his last two experiments turned out as good as the first one. Bill said both of them were good, but he can't figure out exactly how to duplicate his first results using the same formulation. Bill also told me that Sorrento cheese where he lives is now on sale for 1.99 a lb. That sure is cheap.

I just saw this article this morning on the web. http://www.princetoninfo.com/index.php?option=com_us1more&Itemid=6&key=9-25-13pizza I don't recall this article from before in my searches. Sam Amico says that after a drizzle of olive oil, the cheese goes on and then the sauce or more accurately, the crushed tomatoes. The article also says there are four simple elements-the dough, the oil, the cheese, and the sauce.

I wonder if De Lorenzo/Robbinsville does drizzle olive oil first on the skin. I did not see that when I was at De Lorenzo/Robbinville, but then I might have missed something.

I can't find the facebook page devoted to tomato pies. If any member finds that facebook page let me know. I didn't know about the “Pie Eyed” 30-minute DVD from Vincent Amico who is not related to the other Amico's. I would like to watch that video is someone can give me a link to where to purchase the DVD.

I don't think I recall that the original Papa Giuseppe worked at Joe's Pizza in Trenton. If Joe's Pizza that closed in 1990 would have still been opened might that have made that pizzeria the oldest pizzeria in the U.S., or the second oldest pizzeria? I guess there could be some problems with trying to find that out. It says in this article that the original Papa Giuseppe emigrated as a young boy from Naples, the place were modern pizza more or less emerged in the late 1800's. It is unclear how much Giuseppe brought with him from the old country.

Is there anything I missed in the article?

The first photo I copied from U.S. 1 Newspaper. That rim on the De Lorenzo/Robbinsville pizza looks bigger than I remember, or from what my photos show. The second photo is copied off of DeLorenzo's Pizza on facebook to show the ZAGAT 2014 rating from the New Jersey Restaurant guide for De Lorenzo/Hamilton.

I looked up Vincent Amico's phone number on the web and called him. Vincent is very interesting in what he knows about tomato pies in the Trenton area from now and back in the olden days. I asked Vincent about the “Pie Eyed” DVD and he is going to send me and Trenton Bill a DVD. We both gave each other our contact information and will be speaking more soon. We did talk for a long while about tomato pies in the Trenton area and also about Mack's pizza.

Trenton Bill called me today and said he made his best De Lorenzo/Robbinsville pizza to this date. Bill emailed these two photos. Bill told me he used 57% hydration, the right flour, 1.5% salt, .40% IDY and no oil. He dressed his De Lorenzo/Robbinsville attempt with Red Pack tomatoes blended with 6-in 1's and used the LMPS Sorrento mozzarella. Bill did add a little olive oil on the skin and spread it around with his hand before applying the mozzarella. Bill baked in his Blackstone unit. Bill also told me a big bubble appeared when his dough ball warmed up. He was doing a one day cold ferment.

Trenton Bill did an excellent job with his De Lorenzo clone pizza using his BlackStone oven. The pizza looks great. I believe he used the right flour, the right combination of tomatoes, and the right cheese, and all properly applied and at the right times. I especially liked his use of a decent amount of the tomato blend. From some of the Robbinsville photos I looked at, it seemed that the tomatoes were too sparsely applied, whereas photos I have seen elsewhere, such as Google Image, showed considerably more tomatoes.

If Trenton Bill used the expanded dough calculating tool to come up with his version of the De Lorenzo clone dough formulation, along with a bowl residue compensation, I believe that this is what he might have used:

If what Trenton Bill actually used was not what is shown above, if you can get the specifics of his formulation I think I should be able to come up with his specific version.

I believe the bubble was due to the amount of IDY that Trenton Bill used, epecially for a one-day cold fermentation. When I have used 0.40% or even 0.30% IDY here in Texas, I got a tripling of the volume of the dough after one day.

I'd also be curious to know if Trenton Bill had any problems opening up the dough ball, and also what technique he used to do so.

At some time, Trenton Bill might want to use about 1% oil to see if that makes the formulation even better. 1% oil (blend) is less than a half-teaspoon so it shouldn't have a material impact on the dough and its performance.

Trenton Bill did an excellent job with his De Lorenzo clone pizza using his BlackStone oven. The pizza looks great. I believe he used the right flour, the right combination of tomatoes, and the right cheese, and all properly applied and at the right times. I especially liked his use of a decent amount of the tomato blend. From some of the Robbinsville photos I looked at, it seemed that the tomatoes were too sparsely applied, whereas photos I have seen elsewhere, such as Google Image, showed considerably more tomatoes.

If Trenton Bill used the expanded dough calculating tool to come up with his version of the De Lorenzo clone dough formulation, along with a bowl residue compensation, I believe that this is what he might have used:

If what Trenton Bill actually used was not what is shown above, if you can get the specifics of his formulation I think I should be able to come up with his specific version.

I believe the bubble was due to the amount of IDY that Trenton Bill used, epecially for a one-day cold fermentation. When I have used 0.40% or even 0.30% IDY here in Texas, I got a tripling of the volume of the dough after one day.

I'd also be curious to know if Trenton Bill had any problems opening up the dough ball, and also what technique he used to do so.

At some time, Trenton Bill might want to use about 1% oil to see if that makes the formulation even better. 1% oil (blend) is less than a half-teaspoon so it shouldn't have a material impact on the dough and its performance.

Peter

Peter,

I called Trenton Bill and this is what he told me. He used the Lehmann dough calculation tool and entered a TF of .064 He did not use a bowl residue compensation, but he did weight the finished dough. The dough weighed 9.7 ounces.

Bill said he had no problems pressing on the dough and first he flattened it out and then he placed his two hands on the top of the dough and moved with his right hand clockwise and and turned the dough counterclockwise using his right hand more to keep moving the dough until he had it around 360 degrees. He then picked up the dough and stretched it by hand until it was 14” in diameter. He said the dough handled beautiful.

This was his mixing method. Bill has a Kitchen Aid Ultra Power that is about 10 years old and is 300 watts. He uses a glass bowl. First Bill sifted the flour. He then added the salt to the flour and stirred with a fork. Then he put the IDY into the water and and placed the flour with salt on top. Mixed on speed 2 until the flour was off of the bottom, then mixed on speed 2 for 5 more minutes with the dough hook. Balled dough and put semolina on bottom of plastic container. Bill baked in his Blackstone unit at about 600 degrees F.

I believe there was an error for the amount of water, since 110.19 grams of water would translate into a hydration value of 62.69%. Entering the baker's percents and thickness factor (0.064) that Trenton Bill mentioned into the Lehmann dough calculating tool, this is what emerges:

Because Trenton Bill did not use a bowl residue compensation, his final dough ball weight was 9.70 ounces instead of 9.85 ounces as shown in the Lehmann dough calculating tool. For that amount of dough, the corresponding thickness factor is 9.70/(3.14159 x 7 x 7) = 0.0630. So, his crust was a bit thinner as a result, by about 1.6%. That would be too small to detect.